Just as sometimes I think proponents of the global warming hypothesis go overboard to prove their point, there are times I think people go overboard the other direction. Take, for example, the Michigan attack on Schwarzenegger borders on over the top ridiculous.
Oh, no! He wants improved fuel economy! Why...this is the end of all civilization. How dare he demand an improved product? Whatever is he thinking? (Editor's note: previous paragraph may contain sarcasm)
I fail to understand how demanding laws be enforced and suggesting products improve is telling Michigan to "Drop Dead".
Oh, and an aside to the writer and editor of the article: this sentence is difficult to parse:
A Michigan congressman is defending the U.S. auto industry against fuel efficiency increases by criticizing a famous foe of global warming: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Last I cheked, the Governator was under fire by his own party for being too aggressive in supporting anti-global warming measures. He just was a major sponsor in a multi-state anti-global warming initiative package. I hardly consider him a "famous foe" of g-warming. What are they claiming? A famous supporter, sure...but as it stands that sentence, particularly in the context of the article, just does not make sense.
Planning Summerfield
-
We are playing Summerfield. It is a pretty soft course, looks like a 116
slope, 2300ish yards. 6 par 4s, 3 par 3s, par 33 course. I have played it
several...
6 years ago
1 comment:
I don't understand why anyone needs a house of square footage in the tens of thousands in the first place! Does he have that many illegitimate kids?
Seriously...I don't care if he "offsets" his energy. He's a hypocrite if he asks everyone else to conserve, then uses enough power to run a small company.
Post a Comment